James Earl Rychtarik v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 28, 2001

JAMES EARL RYCHTARIK

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 98-3

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF CLEBURNE COUNTY, NO. CR 95-138]

PETITION DENIED

James Earl Rychtarik was found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of life and ten years' imprisonment. We affirmed. Rychtarik v. State, 334 Ark. 492, 976 S.W.2d 374 (1998).

Rychtarik now seeks leave from this court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001).

-A writ of error coram nobis is an exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hiddenor unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal conviction being challenged. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000), citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954), and the petition must be brought in a timely manner. Penn, supra. The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors of the most fundamental nature that are found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Pitts, supra. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. After reviewing the instant petition, we do not find that petitioner has stated good cause to grant leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.

Petitioner first asserts that he was insane at the time of trial. As we noted on appeal of the judgment of conviction, less than one month after petitioner was arrested his attorney moved

to commit him to the Arkansas State Hospital for examination to determine his capacity to stand trial and his ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the law at the time of the commission of the crimes. After examining petitioner, the forensic psychologist concluded that he was suffering from "amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder with delusions" and that he was not competent to assist his attorney in his defense. Petitioner

remained in the State Hospital for approximately one year before he was tried.

It is clear that the question of petitioner's sanity at the time of trial was fully developed at the time he was tried. As the issue was addressed and petitioner could have raised at trial any of the claims he now raises in this petition pertaining to his competence at trial, he has not demonstrated that there is any ground to grant a writ of error coram nobis.

Petitioner next contends that there was material evidence withheld by the prosecutor from the defense. The exact nature of the evidence is not made plain, but it appears to relate to petitioner's confession that he alleges was given while he was held "incommunicado" and while he was under the influence of drugs, hypnosis, and "tunnel-vision." Petitioner does not provide any proof of specific information that was withheld from the defense or explain why he himself would have been unable to relate to his attorney at trial the full circumstances surrounding the confession. Moreover, the trial record does not support petitioner's claim that the prosecution withheld evidence pertaining to the confession in that the circumstances surrounding petitioner's giving of the confession were developed at length at trial. The issue was also raised on appeal, and this court found that the trial court did not err in denying petitioner's motion to suppress the confession on the ground that petitioner lacked the mental competence to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights. Petitioner has failed in his burden to demonstrate that the there was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which holds that it is a violation of due process for the State to suppress evidence favorable to an accused that has been requested. Petition denied.